Letters: solar power

If we are to follow Erik Bruvold’s premise (“Solar flare-up: Rate structure should be fair, economically sustainable” Dialog, Dec. 4), then those driving fuel-efficient electric or hybrid vehicles should pay an additional surcharge to the gasoline companies and governments because they’re using less gasoline, paying less tax on gas, which creates less revenue for the roads and the “grid” infrastructure they use. Yet, the mere fact they’re using less fuel creates less demand, which increases the supply. Supply dictates price. The greater the supply the lower the price, which helps those in the lower income neighborhoods who can’t afford more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

Maybe San Diego Gas and Electric will lower its rates as demand lessens and supply increases in the grid, providing lower rates for those with lower incomes who can’t afford solar panels. Not likely. – Craig Wood, La Mesa

There have been several articles over the past weeks regarding Sempra/SDG&E’s request to the PUC to charge solar customers a “network-use” charge claiming that “solar users currently avoid paying their fair share for the upkeep of electrical infrastructure,” to quote Morgan Lee’s article “Walmart to challenge SDG&E rate proposal” (Business reports, Dec. 1).

The argument that nobody brings up is that SDG&E is receiving excess power to their grid from solar users. That in turn is sold to other nonsolar customers for a huge margin. For example, take a nonsolar customer in the Tier 4 range (30 cents per kilowatt-hour for delivery and generation). The excess generation credit to the solar user is 4 cents per kWh, resulting in a 26 cent per kWh markup for SDG&E.

Additionally SDG&E does not have to build more power plants to meet the increasing energy demand for new customers due to solar user excess generation and/or less demand on the system. – Greg Woolsey, Alpine

In response to “County won’t oppose SDG&E solar rate plan” (Local reports, Dec. 8): It is pathetic the way SDG&E tries to play one group against another in its never-ending greed. “Company officials contend that solar customers escaped from paying their fair share” but never mention the thousands of dollars solar users were tricked into investing to install their systems in this bait-then-switch-the-rules game.

Who will pay the 250 percent increase the water district (and other agencies) will have to collect so SDG&E can receive pay raises, bonuses and benefits? Nonsolar customers will pay these higher cost along with the solar users for allowing SDG&E to pit them against their neighbors just to be “fair.”

If SDG&E really wanted to be “fair” the cost of “transporting” electricity would be based on the distance (poles, wires, etc.) from the generation point, not some made up, arbitrary cost just to line its pockets. – Denis Doran, Santee

Regarding the debate on SDG&E’s plan to establish a “network use charge” on customers who have their own solar electricity generating systems, it is obvious to me that Eric Bruvold’s arguments were inane, spurious and not well thought-out. But, if anyone needs more evidence of this, let me illustrate with just two contradictions:

Bruvold writes that owners of solar earn more money than those who do not. “[in Carmel Valley] Their average household income is … double the county’s average”. Well, what does one expect; he chose Carmel Valley. But, on the other hand, he cites a supposed inequality in that “Solar customers … also benefit from … subsidies for low-income residents who otherwise would have a hard time paying their monthly electric bill.” Which is it – are they rich or poor?

Second, he argues incorrectly that “numerous condos and townhomes can’t accommodate solar, so many San Diegans have no opportunity to own solar yet must pay for those who do.” Of course condos can be fitted with solar systems just as any other structure. But he cites no examples of how this supposed subsidy might actually work. Then, he describes the proposed surcharge as “a flexible model that … gives customers the option of having solar even if they don’t own the roof ever their head [sic].” Again, which is it: are these structures unable to accommodate solar installations, or do we all have to pay to institute a purportedly flexible model to install them?

Bruvold and all other apologists and shills for the privately-owned public utility that is SDG&E need to think their arguments better than this if they hope to have any chance of convincing customers – let alone the PUC – that this charge is needed. – Michael-Leonard Creditor, Clairemont

Our solar array was installed in 2003 after the Enron scams that had tripled everyone’s monthly electric bills.

Now SDG&E wants to scam us again. Rather than support sustainable energy, they want to increase the transmission costs which, believe me, they do charge. And they pay a pittance for any surplus energy they get from us.

Why is Erik Bruvold supporting SDG&E? Because some San Diegans “have no opportunity to own solar, yet must pay for those who do.” Excuse me? They are paying for their own usage. SDG&E charges tiered rates based on levels of energy usage. Will SDG&E change the rates now and increase the charge for lower consumption across the board, or just for those who bought solar? Does it want us to pay for the Sunrise Powerlink?

Bruvold says, “We also must encourage all types of solar development in our own backyard.” Ridiculous. Will people be encouraged to make this investment when they are being treated to higher rates and accusations of getting wattage on the cheap? – Hollace Jones, Middletown

Both are correct but miss the vital economic truth: What is the real cost of a fossil fuel-generated kilowatt-hour of electricity? At current projections, climate change will cost all of us 1.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100 (nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf). So let’s put all the costs on the table, not just the transmission of PV.

And if carbon were priced accurately, SDG&E would not be chasing PV transmission dollars. They would have invested in PV long ago and it would be their systems on roofs, both of the well-to-do and the poor. Congressman Pete Stark (D-Calif.) has introduced the Save Our Climate Act, H.R. 3242, to do just that. – Dadla Ponizil, Encinitas

Dianne Jacob and Randolph Ward are absolutely correct in their assessment of SDG&E. During the 1980s when cogeneration was emerging as an alternate energy source, SDG&E changed the avoided-cost rate to effectively kill the economics of providing cogenerated power from waste heat. At that time I was in the contracting business building cogen plants for public and private owners. Despite all of the high-sounding rhetoric coming out of SDG&E, the real reason for changing the avoided-cost rate (a complicated calculation used by the California Public Utilities Commission), was to limit competition in a protectionist act instead of, as Jacob and Ward say about SDG&E’s latest move, “ … to find a more innovative way to get a fair slice of the renewable pie … .”

The PUC caved in the 1980s. Will that happen again? Or will SDG&E’s customers make their voices heard loudly enough to force the PUC to reject this latest monopolistic bad idea? Even Henry Ford, with 50 million Model T’s produced, finally had to grudgingly acknowledge the advancement of technology when he came out with the Model A. SDG&E can do better and still perform for its shareholders. It can dump the energy Model T and get into the 21st century! – Milton N. Burgess, San Diego

I take issue with Erik Bruvold’s comments. I recently purchased a solar system. I don’t believe there is an “unfair” distribution of financial incentives. I am a middle-class American and chose to spend a significant portion of my net worth on my solar system. I bought my system because it was perfectly legal to do so and because I was encouraged by my children, my peers, my state, the federal government and even SDG&E to lower my carbon footprint. My wife and I took a personal risk in this investment that leaves us with much a much lower financial reserve because we thought it was the right thing to do for the environment.

SDG&E has at its disposal a plethora of analysts who help it understand market trends way into the future. It is also under pressure by the government to encourage and incentivize its customers to invest in renewable energy. So SDG&E certainly knew about this trend in its models.

My solar system pumps energy back into the grid during sunny afternoons. I receive credit for this energy at a very low rate compared to what SDG&E charges for the same power during the same time of day to its nonsolar customers. Therefore I am already supplementing its cost by my investment in a solar system. Now it wants more money. It appears that SDG&E will eventually find a way to tax the sun for shining on our homes. – Norman Katz, San Diego

SDG&E and its apologists want you to believe that my neighbors are subsidizing my rooftop solar. Nonsense! Nobody’s bill has gone up because of the popularity of residential solar, nor has SDG&E had to spend one extra dime to accommodate us. This is not about social justice; it is about trying to claw back lost revenue from solar generators.

When my meter runs backward, SDG&E does not store the energy for me to use when the sun goes down. The electricity that flows out of my meter goes right into someone else’s nearby and SDG&E charges them for it. It is energy that SDG&E would have contracted for and piped in from somewhere else. Instead it is distributed over the same infrastructure that has been in the ground or strung on utility poles since long before residential solar became a good investment. The difference is that it is 100 percent clean energy and SDG&E didn’t need to build a 500 kilovolt transmission line to get it.

I am not getting a free ride from my solar. I invested tens of thousands of dollars, even after the incentive monies, and I paid thousands extra to get panels made in the U.S. The stimulus money I got went where it was intended, to support American jobs, both the contractor who installed it and the people who manufactured it.

So what if not everyone has the money to take advantage of solar? Why does SDG&E want to make a class warfare issue out of it? I could have used the money to buy a more fuel-efficient car. Do people who can only afford older gas guzzlers subsidize those of us who drive newer models? Should fuel efficient car owners pay more at the pump? Should Volt and Leaf owners pay more, not less, for the kilowatt-hours to recharge?

Those who live in inland San Diego County, where summer air conditioning is a must, pay a lot more for grid power, so they look for ways to conserve. When going solar became an attractive investment, the decision was a no-brainer. It’s unconscionable for SDG&E to run a bait-and-switch con job now under the guise of being fair. Hopefully the Public Utilities Commission will see this plan for what it is. – Gary Pellecchia, Ramona

I was hoping to see a data driven, well-argued analysis of SDGE’s plan to add an additional connect fee for existing solar customers in “Solar flare-up.” Instead, Erik Bruvold used the same tired sound bytes about how early solar adopters are not “paying their fair share” for the grid. To the contrary, solar panels are now an affordable commodity because of the investments made by early solar adopters.

Even with the previous subsidies, early adopters paid more per kilowatt-hour than the current cost of solar installs. SDG&E could have saved more than $126 million by not installing the Sunrise Powerlink had it been forward-looking and incentivized local solar by leasing roof space of customers. Reducing the need for additional power stations and lines is just one of the many ways solar customers have saved ratepayers’ money. SDG&E’s current plan is money grab, plain and simple. – Brad Savall, Serra Mesa

In response to “Solar Flare-Up” I own my roof but have no interest in a solar rooftop system largely for aesthetic reasons. I have no problem, however, with any energy cost-savings available to my solar customer neighbors because I appreciate the fact that they make more power available to my home during peak periods, thereby lowering the possibility of local brownouts. I would like to see SDG&E expand its investment in solar power so that its benefits will become more accessible to everyone. – Walter Tobias, San Diego

SDG&E has framed its proposed new grid cost fee as a conflict between solar generators and other ratepayers. The fact is the proposed grid cost fee will affect all ratepayers who try to save on their utility bills in any way. The electrical savings for using fewer lights, installing fluorescent light bulbs or energy-efficient windows or raising a home’s thermostat setting will be reduced by this proposed grid fee whether someone has solar or not. This puts SDG&E squarely on the side of discouraging energy savings of any kind in order to maximize its profit structure. Doesn’t the term “public utility” imply some responsibility to the public? – Geoff Smith, Carlsbad

The author who supports SDG&E’s rate increase for solar panel owners is deluded! First, his assumption that I am a wealthy/affluent resident is flatly wrong. Only in comparison to the poor am I considered affluent. I live in a very modest, older tract home neighborhood. My solar panels are not sitting atop my mega-square-foot mansion/estate. My family is in that shrinking/squeezing middle class.

I would also like to point out that this is the first year that SDG&E has paid me for the excess energy that I have produced, and they paid me pennies for what they turned around and sold for top dollar. And regardless of how much energy I generated, I (and every other solar owner) pay $68-plus a year as a minimum electric fee. These fees have no definition. I can’t really tell you why they can’t be applied to the maintenance of the grid.

As far as the poor being unfairly asked to pay for the maintenance of the grid, how is it that when I produce clean nonpolluting energy (that turns an easy profit for SDG&E) is that hurting the poor? For every decision that I make that supports a clean environment, doesn’t that have a direct and positive effect on the poor? Is it not the poor who suffer the most from a greedy few? Environmental degradation that comes from the hand of those of us who are affluent, does that not effect the poor?

So here we are trying to do the right thing and SDG&E is squelching the solar industry; trying desperately to maintain their grip on wealth, and twisting the facts to achieve their agenda. I hope the public will see this ploy from SDG&E as the ruse it truly is. It sounds a lot like they are taking some ideas straight out of the Occupy Wall Street playbook. The greedy few (that would be those wealthy solar owners) who are exploiting the poor by their unfair manipulation of using the grid. No, what this really is is the American business model in action: the wealthy few (SDG&E) putting the squeeze on the middle class and shedding false crocodile tears for the poor; all the while desperately trying to hang onto their power and wealth. – Sharon Kumpf, Carlsbad